only larger than needed, but also has a shape that does not allow the best possible bond between the composite
material and the tooth. In the view of these facts, the conflict of interest is the same as described above. Some
schools offer so-called mock boards, which I consider even worse, because in this scenario the student clearly uses
the patient to practice an unethical procedure for his/her own benefit. This sends out the wrong signal: “You can
sacrifice ethical considerations for your own benefit”. Doing this we should not be surprised that some dentists do
overtreatment just to improve their financial situation.
Good teaching requires feedback; better teaching allows self-assessment by the students. This means that
reproducible measurements are needed, which is very difficult to achieve with defect oriented cavities for adhesive
restorations. So this is a problem for beginners, learning how to cut into plastic teeth. One way around this
is to first instruct box-shaped cavities for Class III cavity preparations, which can be easily measured with a
periodontal probe. However, doing this we engrave in the students brain a faulty cavity preparation, which does
not correspond to the clinical reality. I wonder if the harm that may result from this can be justified for the
advantage of a simple measurement.
Looking at all these conflicts, it seems almost impossible to find a solution. To find one we have to look at a
different, even more complex teaching situation. The best way of how to learn to fly is flying on a plane with
double controls - one for the student and one for the teacher. Tell, show, do, is the classical approach here. The
problem of flight instructors is how to teach difficult situations that are dangerous. Therefore I ask, would you
as a flight instructor teach your pilot students to perform an emergency landing with a crash with a complex
airplane that costs millions, and which is loaded with passengers? Of course, not at all. There, as long as I can
think, simulation is the answer. Modern flight simulators can be so realistic, that the trainees forget that they
are not really flying and it is reported that even experienced pilots exit the simulator ashen and drenched in
sweat after some emergency training. So why not do the same in dentistry? We have all the tools. Scanners can
measure what the student has done and compare it to the requested even complex and complicated shape and
computers can visualize to the student the degree of discrepancy. There is no better way for grading or examining
the psychomotor skills of students, without running the risk of an ethical conflict. Just do it!
J-F Roulet
Editor-in-Chief
Stomatology Edu Journal
DOI: 10.25241/stomaeduj.2018.5(1).edit.1
5